ork-assess
Assess a code change, design, architecture, workflow, or competing options against explicit criteria and evidence. Use when a request asks to assess, rate,…
Golden dataset lifecycle patterns for curation, versioning, quality validation, and CI integration. Use when building evaluation datasets, managing dataset versions, validating quality scores, or integrating golden tests into pipelines.
$ npx -y skills add yonatangross/orchestkit --skill golden-dataset --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/golden-datasetContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Golden dataset lifecycle patterns for curation, versioning, quality validation, and CI integration. Use when building evaluation datasets, managing dataset versions, validating quality scores, or integrating golden tests into pipelines.
name: golden-dataset license: MIT compatibility: "Claude Code 2.1.251+." description: Golden dataset lifecycle patterns for curation, versioning, quality validation, and CI integration. Use when building evaluation datasets, managing dataset versions, validating quality scores, or integrating golden tests into pipelines. tags: [golden-dataset, evaluation, dataset-curation, dataset-validation, quality, llm-testing] context: fork agent: data-pipeline-engineer version: 2.0.0 author: OrchestKit user-invocable: false disable-model-invocation: true complexity: medium persuasion-type: guidance metadata: category: document-asset-creation allowed-tools: - Read - Glob - Grep - WebFetch - WebSearch
Comprehensive patterns for building, managing, and validating golden datasets for AI/ML evaluation. Each category has individual rule files in `rules/` loaded on-demand.
| Category | Rules | Impact | When to Use | | -------- | ----- | ------ | ----------- | | [Curation](#curation) | 2 | HIGH | Content collection, annotation pipelines | | [Management](#management) | 2 | HIGH | Versioning, backup/restore | | [Validation](#validation) | 1 | CRITICAL | Regression testing | | [Add Workflow](#add-workflow) | 1 | HIGH | 9-phase curation, quality scoring, bias detection, silver-to-gold |
Total: 6 rules across 4 categories. House thresholds and scars: `references/ork-delta.md`.
Content collection, multi-agent annotation, and diversity analysis for golden datasets.
| Rule | File | Key Pattern | | ---- | ---- | ----------- | | Collection | `rules/curation-collection.md` | Content type classification, quality thresholds, duplicate prevention | | Annotation | `rules/curation-annotation.md` | Multi-agent pipeline, consensus aggregation, Langfuse tracing |
Difficulty ladder, coverage floors, and duplicate thresholds: `references/ork-delta.md`.
Versioning, storage, and CI/CD automation for golden datasets.
| Rule | File | Key Pattern | | ---- | ---- | ----------- | | Versioning | `rules/management-versioning.md` | JSON backup format, embedding regeneration, disaster recovery | | Storage | `rules/management-storage.md` | Backup strategies, URL contract, data integrity checks |
CI automation for backups is upstream's job; see "Upstream coverage" below.
Quality scoring, drift detection, and regression testing for golden datasets.
| Rule | File | Key Pattern | | ---- | ---- | ----------- | | Regression | `rules/validation-regression.md` | Difficulty distribution, pre-commit hooks, full dataset validation |
Schema validation and duplicate detection are upstream's job (see "Upstream coverage" below); the house thresholds they must enforce live in `references/ork-delta.md`.
Structured workflow for adding new documents to the golden dataset.
| Rule | File | Key Pattern | | ---- | ---- | ----------- | | Add Document | `rules/curation-add-workflow.md` | 9-phase curation, parallel quality analysis, bias detection |
async def validate_before_add(document: dict, source_url_map: dict) -> dict:
"""Pre-addition validation for golden dataset entries."""
errors = []
# 1. URL contract check
if "placeholder" in document.get("source_url", ""):
errors.append("URL must be canonical, not a placeholder")
# 2. Content quality
if len(document.get("title", "")) < 10:
errors.append("Title too short (min 10 chars)")
# 3. Tag requirements
if len(document.get("tags", [])) < 2:
errors.append("At least 2 domain tags required")
return {"valid": len(errors) == 0, "errors": errors}| Decision | Recommendation | | -------- | -------------- | | Backup format | JSON (version controlled, portable) | | Embedding storage | Exclude from backup (regenerate on restore) | | Quality threshold | >= 0.70 quality score for inclusion | | Confidence threshold | >= 0.65 for auto-include | | Duplicate threshold | >= 0.90 similarity blocks, >= 0.85 warns | | Min tags per entry | 2 domain tags | | Min test queries | 3 per document | | Difficulty balance | Trivial 3, Easy 3, Medium 5, Hard 3 minimum | | CI frequency | Weekly automated backup (Sunday 2am UTC) |
1. Using placeholder URLs instead of canonical source URLs 2. Skipping embedding regeneration after restore 3. Not validating referential integrity between documents and queries 4. Over-indexing on articles (neglecting tutorials, research papers) 5. Missing difficulty distribution balance in test queries 6. Not running verification after backup/restore operations 7. Testing restore procedures in production instead of staging 8. Committing SQL dumps instead of JSON (not version-control friendly)
Curating a dataset is half the job; the other half is running something against it and scoring the result. Both Langfuse SDKs ship a runner, and their shapes differ.
**Python (SDK 4.x):** see `monitoring-observability/references/experiments-api.md`.
**JS/TS (SDK 5.x):** `@langfuse/client` exposes the runner directly on a fetched dataset.
import { LangfuseClient } from "@langfuse/client";
const langfuse = new LangfuseClient();
const dataset = await langfuse.dataset.get("my-evaluation-dataset");
const result = await dataset.runExperiment({
name: "Retrieval quality",
task: myTask, // (params) => Promise<any>
evaluators: [myEvaluator], // per-item: (params) => Promise<Evaluation | Evaluation[]>
});| Type | Scores | Use for | |---|---|---| | `Evaluator` | one item | Per-example quality (faithfulness, relevance) | | `RunEvaluator` | the whole run | Aggregate assertions — pass rate, mean score, regression checks | | `Evaluation` | — | `{ name, value, comment?, metadata?, dataType?, configId? }` |
A per-item `Evaluator` cannot see the other items, so anything comparative belongs in a
The Complete AI Development Toolkit for Claude Code. 106 skills, 36 agents, 171 hooks. Install `ork` for stable (v9.x), or `ork-alpha` for the v10 line, which ships daily.
Repo: yonatangross/orchestkit
Assess a code change, design, architecture, workflow, or competing options against explicit criteria and evidence. Use when a request asks to assess, rate,…
Compare plausible implementation, architecture, product, or operational approaches before committing to one. Use when a request asks to brainstorm, think…
Map an unfamiliar codebase, feature, architecture, data flow, or operational path with file-backed evidence. Use when a request asks how a system works, where…
Make an approved, scoped change and prove the affected behavior. Use when a request asks to implement, build, add, or land a feature that already has an agreed…
Review a pull request or branch for correctness, regressions, security, operational risk, and missing evidence. Use when a request asks to review a PR, review…
Verify that existing work is ready to merge, release, or hand off using an explicit evidence contract. Use when a request asks to verify, validate, prove,…